6 Comments

An excellent comment by the press. The only “sensationalization” is the magnitude of the money about to be spent on something that may or may not do anything. I especially appreciated the comment about “most stock brokers believed in Enron” in response to most scientists believing in AGW. Too bad there isn’t a link to this site. It would certainly help to spread the truth and maybe save us a few bucks.

Steve McIntyre is Paul Martin’s worst nightmare. A couple of years ago, the Toronto mining consultant got interested in the science behind global warming. Mr. McIntyre is not a scientist. He’s just a curious citizen with a first-rate mathematical mind who was intrigued by the biggest public policy issue of the age. “It started as a hobby,” he says.

Margaret Wente does a great job of expressing my opinion. I rarely disagree with her commentaries.

The Globe printed three letters today from people who were outraged by her yesterday’s article (one from Greenpeace Canada (surprise)). All three denigrated Steve as a non-scientist and claimed there is a consensus of climate scientists just lining up to prove Steve wrong.

But, and I may have asked this before, since Steve and Ross have published a paper that has something to do with climate, does this qualify them as climate scientists? If not, what are the qualifications?